We have been just as wrong in the past

Of course not. How does that tie into my post?

Yes, a village of innocents, including children, were slaughtered. Yes, that's one of the reasons why protesters called returning soldiers "baby killers." And?

You can ignore this if you want, but I have some good advice for you: try to use fewer antagonistic words. Your reply sounded like it needed a "neener neener neener" after it.

 

I think you might be referring to something else here. The Cold War was driven by the fact that the Soviets acquired the bomb. It was the Domino Theory that had the US and Soviets dancing across SE Asia, Central & South America.

 

The bolded is not true. The US has often funded, supported and sold weapons to the stronger side as well, as is currently happening with Israel. Whatever can profit weapons manufacturers in the US and the US can sell to the public as a worthy side. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Banana republics propped up by US dollars come to mind.

 

okay then admit you wrong. The US is backing Israel which is the stronger side,

 

I remember the first war being justified in defending Kuwait (even though we gave Iraq the green light to invade). However, I was completely against the second Gulf War and was part of the 30% of Americans against it.

 

Yet you brought up Russia again.

Fascinating. It's like you have some kind of connection with that country...

My point is we reap what we sow. The consequences of Vietnam did not decimate the US.

 

lol…What debate? We all know Russian propaganda farm fodder is not open to debate.
It’s best to ignore troll threads and not get sucked down into the sewer to argue nonsense.

 

And it's a symbiotic relationship with the Trump supporter apparently encouraged.

 

Most of the divisive nonsense maga spouts comes straight from russian propaganda farms.
They remind me of the folks in the 1930s who sided with Hitler against our country and demonized anyone who refused to swallow their divisive nonsense.

 

And, that's how it ties into your post.
You answered your own question.

 

True, if the weaker side is the one the US govt will sponsor and give weapons to then as with Ukraine, we
can sell far more to Ukraine than we could sell to Russia.

If a side that was weak gets tons of US weapons and becomes strong, then we keep supplying them. Israel was not strong in 1967,
but we've supplied nuclear technology and a huge amount of weapons. At one time Israel was our main destination of foreign aid.

 

If it was purely profit driven, you'd be selling weapons to both sides (which actually has occasionally happened but isn't the norm), so there is more going on than just that.

 

The statement that the US stands up for the little guy is a way of patting ourselves on the back
on some occasions, but being a bit cynical I'd suggest it's because we can't sell weapons to
the side that doesn't need them.

I'm only referring to that concept and statement.

You are absolutely right, real life can be very complicated and throws up all sorts of unexpected things.

 

Sorry, but you still make no sense.

How about plainly stating your point?